Filed 2/11/26 In re X.G. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re X.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, E086881
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. J297636)
v. OPINION
A.G.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Lynn M. Poncin,
Judge. Reversed and remanded.
Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Laura Feingold, County Counsel, Dawn M. Martin and Helena Rho, Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1 At a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.261 hearing, the juvenile court
terminated the parental rights of defendant and appellant A.G. (mother) as to X.G.
(minor, born September 2020).2 On appeal, mother contends the court erred in declining
to apply the beneficial parental relationship exception to termination of parental rights.
We reverse and remand.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 24, 2023, personnel from plaintiff and respondent, the San Bernardino
County Children and Family Services (the department), received a referral alleging that
mother had struck minor with an extension cord, pushed him into a wall, and threw him
onto the ground leaving welts and bruises on his legs and back. Officers arrested mother
for willful harm to a child under circumstances likely to produce great bodily injury. She
admitted to an officer that she hit minor with an extension cord. The officer observed
welts and bruises on minor’s body.
Mother and minor lived with the maternal grandmother. The social worker
interviewed the maternal aunt, who said she witnessed most of the incident. The
maternal aunt said she was sleeping but awoke to the sounds of mother yelling at minor.
She entered mother’s room and saw mother hitting minor with a speaker wire causing
minor to cry out in pain. The maternal aunt then saw mother push minor into a wall
1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Intuitions Code.
2 The court also terminated mother’s parental rights as to minor 2 in case No. J299039. However, mother expressly notes that she is not raising any issues with respect to minor 2. We therefore dismiss as abandoned mother’s appeal as to minor 2. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)
2 causing him to hit his head. Mother pushed minor to the ground and continued to yell at
him.
The social worker interviewed mother, who reported that minor was running
around with a knife. She asked him to stop several times, “so I gave him a whooping. I
couldn’t find my belt, so I used my speaker cord. This is the second time he got a
whooping.” She described the “whopping” as four hits with the speaker wire. Mother
said the bruises on minor were not inflicted by her.
Mother described the previous occasion she had inflicted corporeal punishment on
minor: “I whooped him two (2) times with a belt and it wasn’t hard.” She denied any
prior instances of physical discipline or domestic violence in the home.
Father said he would care for minor on weekends.3 He stated he had observed
mother “whoop” minor several times. The most recent incident occurred six or seven
months earlier: “I heard [minor] crying and saw her whooping him. I had to stop her.
We left for a little bit and then came back. [Minor] was shaking.” Father recalled three
“‘more bad whoopings, when I had to stop her.’” Minor was left shaking and did not
want to be around mother anymore. Father denied any domestic violence between he and
mother but reported observing domestic violence between mother and the maternal
grandmother.
Mother had a previous dependency history involving an inconclusive allegation of
general neglect in 2022. The social worker took minor into protective custody pursuant
3 Father is not a party to the appeal.
3 to a detention warrant. On June 25, 2023, the department placed minor in the home of a
maternal cousin.
On June 27, 2023, the department filed a section 300 juvenile dependency petition
alleging, as pertinent here, that mother physically abused minor (a-1, b-2, & e-7), that
mother had an untreated mental health problem (b-4), that mother had engaged in
domestic violence in the presence of minor (b-6), and that mother had left minor without
support (g-8). On June 28, 2023, the court detained minor.
In the July 17, 2023, jurisdiction and disposition report, the social worker
recommended the court find the allegations in the petition true,4 remove minor from
mother’s custody, and provide her reunification services. A medical report after a
physical examination of minor indicated minor had “‘linear, collinear, and patterned scars
that are consistent with being struck with a flexible implement. This is consistent with
inflicted trauma, physical abuse.’”
Mother admitted using a speaker cord resulting in minor being seriously,
physically harmed. She agreed with the allegation of severe physical abuse to a child
under five years of age but denied that she intended to cause physical harm. Mother
denied domestic violence in the home with the maternal grandmother or the maternal
aunt but reported one incident of domestic violence between she and father.
Mother was homeless but actively looking for housing. Her reunification plan
included individual counseling, parenting classes, domestic violence classes, and anger
4 The social worker recommended the court find the g-8 allegation untrue. Mother had been released from custody on June 27, 2023.
4 management classes. The social worker recommended mother receive a psychological
examination.
A social worker monitored an initial visit between mother and minor. Minor got
excited to see mother. “[H]e ran up to [her] with a smile on his face, lifting his arms for
her to pick him up. She picked him up and embraced him with a smile on her face.
[Mother] brought hair supplies, coloring books, markers, blocks, toy cars and animal
flash cards for the visit. [Minor] appeared to be attached to [mother] as she was able to
rock him to sleep. The engagement between [mother] and [minor] was positive. She did
floor play with him with the blocks, braided his hair and went over the animal flash cards
with him. She praised him for being able to identify the animals on each card as well as
the sound that they made. When it was time to leave [minor] became emotional and
stated ‘No’ and began to cry.”
In an additional information to the court filed on August 16, 2023, the social
worker “reviewed the Children Assessment Center (CAC) report. The CAC report does
not indicate multiple acts of abuse.” Thus, the social worker recommended the e-7
allegation be dismissed.
The social worker observed four additional visits between mother and minor.
Mother would bring minor’s “favorite snacks and age appropriate toys such as blocks,
piano, truck and cars. [Mother] also brought educational material such as flash cards and
alphabet white board. [The social worker] observed that [minor] was extremely bonded
to his mother as e[]videnced by him smiling and running up to her when he saw her.
5 [Mother] was receptive as e[]videnced by her picking him up and [hugging] him.
[Mother] positive[ly] interact[ed] with [minor]. [Mother] engaged in age appropriate
floor play activities such as playing with blocks, going over . . . animal flash cards, and
participating in pretend restaurant play and sung nursery rhymes.” Minor “was always
excited to see the mother and cried when it was time to leave the visit” on two occasions.
In a September 14, 2023, additional information to the court, the social worker observed
minor cry when mother left after another visit.
At the hearing on September 14, 2023, the court found the allegations in the
petition true,5 adjudged minor a ward of the court, removed him from mother’s custody,
and ordered mother to participate in reunification services.
On November 10, 2023, the social worker received a referral when mother gave
birth to minor 2 and disclosed that minor was in the department’s custody. The social
worker “contacted hospital staff, who reported the baby was born healthy, mother was
bonding to the baby, and [they] had no further concerns to report.” “The baby was
observed to look healthy and was free of any visible marks and/or bruises.”
The social worker took minor 2 into protective custody pursuant to a detention
warrant. The department placed minor 2 with the maternal grandmother’s cousin.
On November 14, 2023, the department filed a juvenile dependency petition
alleging, as to minor 2 and as pertinent here, that parents had an open dependency case
5 The court dismissed the g-8 allegation. Despite the social worker’s recommendation that the e-7 allegation be dismissed, no one requested the court do so at the hearing, and the court found that allegation true.
6 for minor alleging physical abuse and domestic violence which placed minor 2 at similar
risk (B-1, B-2, J-3, & J-4). On November 15, 2023, the court detained minor 2.
In the jurisdiction and disposition report as to minor 2, the social worker
recommended the court find the allegations true, remove minor 2, and grant parents
reunification services. The social worker supervised a visit between mother and minors.
“The mother was affectionate throughout the visit with the children giving hugs, kisses
and massaged [minor’s] feet.” “The mother brought new winter clothes and a Leap Frog
100 words book for the children. It should be noted the mother educated [minor] on the
animals, alphabet and animal names. The mother also cited the letters of the alphabet
with [minor].” “The mother was very soft spoken and affectionate in her communication
with both children throughout the visit.”
In the January 4, 2024, additional information to the court, the social worker
reported that mother “completed the following service programs: twelve (12) sessions of
Anger Management, twelve (12) sessions of Parenting Classes and twelve (12) sessions
of Domestic Violence at Outreach Nation Clinic.” Mother had completed her psychiatric
evaluation, the results of which would be ready within two to three weeks.
Mother had weekly visitation with minors, during which the social worker
“observed the mother to attend as scheduled . . . and is engaged with the children
throughout the visit. The mother . . . is very attentive to the needs of the children.”
In an additional information for the court filed February 6, 2024, the social worker
reported that mother showed up on time for all scheduled visits with minor without
7 incident. In the attached report, the psychologist considered mother’s assessment invalid
due to mother’s “reports of being confused and her having difficulty interpreting the . . .
questions and answers provided.” The psychologist recommended mother be
reevaluated.
At the February 7, 2024, jurisdiction and disposition hearing as to minor 2, the
court found the allegations in the petition true, adjudged minor 2 a ward of the court,
removed him from mother’s custody, and ordered mother to participate in reunification
services. The court ordered mother to undergo another psychological assessment.
In the March 4, 2024, status review report as to minor, the social worker
recommended “services continue to be provided mother . . . with the goal of Family
Maintenance with authority for an extended visit after the mother has completed a
psychiatric evaluation.” The maternal cousin “reported she is committed to being a
lifelong support to [minor].” “[Minor’s] placement is appropriate. He is doing well, and
all of his needs are being met. [Minor] has adjusted to the home.” Minors visited weekly
with each other; minor appeared to be bonded with minor 2. Minor had weekly visitation
with the maternal grandmother, who transports “mother to and from visits.”
“The mother . . . has stable housing with the maternal grandmother . . . and her
three younger sister[s]. [Mother] reports having her own room and the children will be in
the room with her. The home has three bedrooms and it appears that there would be
enough room for the child to return to the home for an extended visit.” “The mother has
unsupervised visitation one time per week for two hours. The Department has authorized
8 increased unsupervised visitation to eight hours per week. The mother stated the visits
maybe in the cousin home because of the ages of the child and where she lives compared
to where she is placed.”
In an additional information to the court filed March 28, 2024, the social worker
reported that mother was on time and consistent with visitation with minors. Mother was
patient with minors and remained focused on minors throughout the visits. “[M]inors see
each other daily and the mother is checking in and staying connected with her
supporters.” Mother had two unsupervised visits during the reporting period.
At the hearing on March 29, 2024, minor’s counsel stated, “Mother’s visits have
been going well, Your Honor. She just needs to complete the second psychological
evaluation which is scheduled for April 2nd.” The court continued mother’s reunification
services. The court further ordered, “Visitation between [minor] and his mother is
ordered unsupervised for a minimum of one time per week for eight hours.”
In a July 30, 2024, status review report, the social worker recommended mother’s
reunification services be continued “with the goal of Family Maintenance (FM) with
authority for an extended visit with the mother.” Mother had completed the wanger
management, domestic violence classes, and parenting components of her case plan.
Mother was scheduled for her second psychological evaluation, the results of which the
department indicated it would submit to the court upon receipt of the report.
Mother had unsupervised visits with minor once weekly for eight hours. Mother
had missed some visits due to transportation issues. The department provided mother
9 with gas cards and bus passes, and the resource parents had agreed to meet mother in
between to help with the transportation distance. Although placed separately, minors saw
each other daily for six hours, Monday through Friday, as they both attended the same
daycare.
Mother reported that minors’ “well-being is most important to her and that she
wants her children to know that she loves them and is committing to being a better
mother for them.” “The mother reports that her biggest priority is her children and
stabilizing herself so that she can provide the boys with a new life.” “The mother reports
that she is determined to make her own way for herself and her children.”
At the August 7, 2024, hearing, the court continued mother’s reunification services
for minors. The court observed of mother, “I must commend you on the work that
you’ve been doing. It’s a very positive report about completing services, also you
understand now how the relationship with the children’s father was unhealthy and unsafe
for the children. [¶] You have been separated from the father and acknowledged
engaging in domestic violence and improper discipline of the children. But you’re also
acknowledging the importance of ensuring that you are fit and able to provide care for . . .
your children, so it seems to me you’re benefitting greatly from your services.”
In the status review reports filed December 12, 2024, the social worker
recommended the court return custody of minor to mother under family maintenance
services pending the completion of a 29-day extended visit. Mother had requested
individual therapy, to which the department referred her on August 27, 2024; mother
10 completed her eight sessions of therapy on October 3, 2024. “[M]other completed her
second psychological evaluation . . . . The mother has been consistently engaged in her
services and has remained in compliance with the Department.”6 Mother had
successfully transitioned to having unsupervised, overnight, weekend visits with minors
at the maternal grandmother’s home.
At the hearing on December 19, 2024, there were no objections to the
recommended 29-day unsupervised, extended visit. The court ordered minors placed
with mother on an extended visit.
In an additional information to the court filed January 17, 2025, the social worker
reported that she had completed three contacts with minors during their 29-day extended
stay with mother. Mother had entered a women’s shelter, in which she was allowed to
have minors with her. “The children have both been observed to be doing well as they
each have their own bed and playpen and also play with the other children in the shelter.”
“The mother has scheduled routine medical and dental appointments for the kids and
continues to be in contact with the department.”
“The children are bonded to their mother and have been observed to be dressed
appropriately and free of marks and bruises during monthly contacts. The mother has
made substantial progress and has demonstrated her ability to appropriately redirect
[minor] if he is not following directions. The mother has been observed to demonstrate
what she has learned in services and is utilizing the resources offered to her. [The
6 The results of the second psychological evaluation were unremarkable for purposes of the issue raised on appeal.
11 department] respectfully believes that the recommendation to return the children home to
the mother under a Family Maintenance service component remains appropriate.”
At the hearing on January 21, 2025, there were no objections to the
recommendation that minors be returned to mother’s custody under family maintenance
services. The court ordered minors returned to mother’s custody as dependents of the
court.
On March 11, 2025, the social worker received a call from the maternal
grandmother reporting concerns that mother was planning to relocate to Las Vegas,
Nevada. Mother had been evicted from her transitional housing for violating program
rules when she was discovered to have an unidentified male and three additional children
in the home.
The maternal grandmother offered to allow mother and minors to move in with
her. Mother responded that she was going to move in with the man, who was identified
as her boyfriend, and his children in Las Vegas. The maternal grandmother informed
mother that she could not move the children out of state while she still had an ongoing
dependency case as to minors. Mother responded that she had a right to take minors out
of state, and that the department would not be able to remove them.
The social worker repeatedly attempted to contact mother by phone and text, but
mother never responded. The maternal grandmother found minors in the care of the
boyfriend’s children with no adult present.
12 An officer sent to conduct a welfare check reported that mother informed him her
dependency case had been dismissed. The boyfriend had a prior criminal charge of child
neglect and had three prior substantiated dependency allegations of emotional abuse,
physical abuse, and general neglect regarding domestic violence with his children’s
mother.
On March 11, 2025, the department filed supplemental petitions alleging mother
left minors without appropriate adult supervision (S-1). On March 12, 2025, the court
detained minors on the supplemental petitions.
In the jurisdiction and disposition report on the supplemental petitions, the social
worker recommended the court place minors in out-of-home care, deny mother
reunification services, and set the section 366.26 hearing. The social worker interviewed
mother, who acknowledged that the manager of the transitional housing informed her that
she was not allowed to have guests. Despite the rule, mother had let her boyfriend and
his children stay at the home on three occasions. Mother said she was aware the
boyfriend had a prior dependency case, but she was unaware of the substance of the
allegations. She said she did not know that he had any criminal charges.
Mother “reported that she had been thinking about the children and reported that
she was considering sending the children back to the current caregivers because she was
having difficulties transporting the children without a car of her own. The mother
reported that she has given it some thought and does not believe that she is able to care
for them on her own in addition to losing her transitional housing. The mother asked if
13 the children would be fine to remain with the relative caregivers, until she is back on her
feet.”
The maternal cousin and her husband had expressed their willingness to be a
concurrent home for minor. Minors had been placed separately in relative homes but had
weekly visitation with one another. “Both relatives had the children previously and have
maintained the children’s needs. The children have done well in placement prior to
reunification and are doing well since returning . . . to placement.”
At the hearing on April 2, 2025, the court noted, “Mother would be waiving
family reunification services. In looking at the time line of this case, though, I don’t
believe the Mother is eligible for services and is statutorily out of time.” Counsel for the
department confirmed the court’s assessment. The court found the allegations in the
supplemental petitions true, removed minors from mother’s custody, terminated
reunification services, and set the section 366.26 hearing.
In the July 22, 2025, section 366.26 report, the social worker recommended the
court terminate mother’s parental rights. Minors “have had contact with mother on June
13, 2025. The caretakers reported that the visit went without any incidents.” “The
children’s monthly visits with their mother were recently resumed on June 13, 2025. The
mother had not kept her visits or cancelled due to lack of transportation or illness.”
The social worker posited that minor “is an appropriate child for adoption.” “His
caregiver is able and willing to continue working with him. The caregiver loves [minor]
and wants to help him grow and thrive.” Minor’s prospective adoptive parent, her
14 domestic partner, and her son live “in a peaceful and well-established area.” The
prospective adoptive mother wanted minor “to have a relationship with his biological
mother as long as it remains appropriate and beneficial to the child. [Minor] will see his
brother several times per week as his brother resides with [the prospective adoptive
parent’s] sister a few miles from her house.”
On July 28, 2025, mother filed a section 388 petition requesting reinstatement of
reunification services, alleging changed circumstances in that she had moved back in
with the maternal grandmother, and that the requested order was in minor’s best interest
in having a stable home. The court denied the petition as not stating a change of
circumstances or being in minor’s best interest.
In the July 29, 2025, additional information to the court, the social worker noted
that “mother has not also been able to have consistent visits as the mother was on house
arrest until July 12th.”7 “The department plans to renew the mother’s visits now that her
house arrest is completed.”
In the additional information to the court filed on September 02, 2025, the social
worker reported, “The department plans to renew the mother’s visits now that her house
arrest is completed.” In yet another report on September 5, 2025, the social worker
noted, “the department has completed the renewal for mother’s visits.”8
7 Presumably, the house arrest related to the disposition of the initial criminal charge against mother in this case; however, the record does not contain any more specific information about it.
8 It is unclear why there was a delay by the department in arranging visitation between mother and minor between July 12, and September 5, 2025.
15 At the section 366.26 hearing on September 9, 2025, mother testified that her
current visitation order was for two hours weekly. She had missed some visitation due to
having strep. Prior to their removal, minors lived with mother. They lived together “like
a regular family, eating meals, bathing, discipline, and reading . . . .”
Mother prepares for visits by bringing “wipes, diapers, food, juice, toys, anything
the kids might need.” Minors are happy to see her at visits. “They usually run up to me,
hug me, kiss me, and they usually make me carry them.” At visits, “We read, we lay on
the floor, play with cars. We take bathroom breaks to wash our hands. I take snacks.
You know, anything the kids might want to do. Sometimes we color and just have fun.”
She holds and cuddles minors.
There are tears at the end of visits. Minors cling to her and express that they do
not want the visits to end. Mother believes that if her parental rights were terminated, “it
will create an emotional distress for the boys. They want to come home and see me all
the time . . . .” “I think because they have an emotional connection with me and not
seeing me will hurt them more than it already does.” Mother and minor talked on
FaceTime every night, and “he tells me—all the time that he wants to come home. He
misses me. He loves me and he just wants his mommy.”
“I sit on the phone with him. He talks to me. He talks about what he learned,
what he’s eating, what he’s doing. I read to him through the phone. We sit. We laugh.
We giggle.”
16 The court found minor adoptable. The court cited In re Caden C. (2021) 11
Cal.5th 614 (Caden C.), noting that in order to establish the beneficial relationship
exception to termination of parental rights, “mother must provide evidence of the first
element, regular visitation and contact; the second element is a relationship the
continuation of which would benefit the children; the third element that termination
would be detrimental to the children.” The court found that mother had met her burden
of proof with respect to regular visitation.
As to the second prong, the court found that “the children lived with her prior to
removal. They’re happy to see her. They run up to her, hug her, call her ‘Mom’, say that
they miss her, and that [minor] wants to come home. [¶] There appears to be an
emotional attachment that the mother holds the children, cuddles them, changes the
youngest child’s diapers. She also is able to discipline [minor] and redirect him during
visits. She testified there are tears at the end of the visits and that the children don’t want
the visit to end and that the children cling to her. Based on the mother’s testimony, the
Court will find that the mother has met her burden of proof as to the second element of In
re Caden C.”
With respect to the third element, “whether termination of parental rights would be
detrimental to the children[,]” the court found that, “While the Mother has testified she
believes terminating parental rights will cause distress for the children, that she believes
the children would benefit from continuing the relationship and would suffer emotional
17 harm if her parental rights were terminated, this is all from the viewpoint of the mother,
not the viewpoint of the children.”
Minor “is only five years old as of today. There’s been no evidence presented that
there is emotional dysregulation, that the children are suffering from night terrors after a
visit with the mother. There’s no indication the caregiver has had issues with the children
regressing in their behavior such as to indicate termination of parental rights would be
detrimental to the children.” Thus, the court found that mother had not met her burden of
proof that termination of her parental rights would be detrimental to minors. The court
terminated mother’s parental rights.
II. DISCUSSION
Mother contends the juvenile court erred in declining to apply the beneficial
parental relationship exception to termination of parental rights. We agree.
“[T]he goal at the section 366.26 hearing is ‘specifically . . . to select and
implement a permanent plan for the child.’ [Citations.] To guide the court in selecting
the most suitable permanent arrangement, the statute lists plans in order of preference and
provides a detailed procedure for choosing among them. [Citation.] According to that
procedure, the court must first determine by clear and convincing evidence whether the
child is likely to be adopted. [Citation.] If so, and if the court finds that there has been a
previous determination that reunification services be terminated, then the court shall
terminate parental rights to allow for adoption. [Citation.] But if the parent shows that
termination would be detrimental to the child for at least one specifically enumerated
18 reason, the court should decline to terminate parental rights and select another permanent
plan. [Citation.] As we have previously explained, ‘[t]he statutory exceptions merely
permit the court, in exceptional circumstances [citation], to choose an option other than
the norm, which remains adoption.’” (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 630-631.)
“The exception at issue in this case is limited in scope. It applies where ‘[t]he
court finds a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to
the child due to one or more of the following circumstances: [¶] (i) The parents have
maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from
continuing the relationship.’ [Citation.] From the statute, we readily discern three
elements the parent must prove to establish the exception: (1) regular visitation and
contact, and (2) a relationship, the continuation of which would benefit the child such
that (3) the termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child.” (Caden C.,
supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 631.) It is the parent who must prove all three elements by a
preponderance of the evidence; the parent must “show a ‘compelling reason for
determining that termination would be detrimental to the child . . . .’” (Id. at p. 635.)
Here, as the parties agree, the juvenile court found that mother maintained regular
visitation with minor and had a beneficial bond with him. Thus, we address only the
third prong, detriment.
“[I]n assessing whether termination would be detrimental, the trial court must
decide whether the harm from severing the child’s relationship with the parent outweighs
the benefit to the child of placement in a new adoptive home. [Citation.] By making this
19 decision, the trial court determines whether terminating parental rights serves the child’s
best interests.” (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 632.) “Because terminating parental
rights eliminates any legal basis for the parent or child to maintain the relationship, courts
must assume that terminating parental rights terminates the relationship. [Citations.]
What courts need to determine, therefore, is how the child would be affected by losing
the parental relationship—in effect, what life would be like for the child in an adoptive
home without the parent in the child’s life.” (Id. at p. 633.) “[T]he question is just
whether losing the relationship with the parent would harm the child to an extent not
outweighed, on balance, by the security of a new, adoptive home.” (Id. at p. 634.)
“[W]hether termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child due to
the child’s relationship with his parent—is discretionary and properly reviewed for abuse
of discretion.” (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 640.) “A court abuses its discretion
only when ‘“‘the trial court has exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an
arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination.’”’ [Citation.] But ‘“‘[w]hen two
or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no
authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.’”’” (Id. at p. 641.)
We agree with mother that the juvenile court abused its discretion in finding that
termination of the relationship between mother and minor would not be detrimental to
minor.
First, the court had already determined that mother visited consistently with minor
and that their relationship was beneficial to minor.
20 Second, minor was less than three months shy of three years old when the
department first took him into protective custody. During the proceedings, the court
granted mother a 29-day unsupervised, extended visit with minor; later, the court returned
minor to mother’s custody for nearly two months under family maintenance services.
Minor was five years old on the day that the juvenile court terminated mother’s parental
rights. Mother testified that they had lived together “like a regular family, eating meals,
bathing, discipline, and reading . . . .” Thus, minor had spent approximately three of his
five years of life in mother’s custody. (In re E.T. (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 68, 70 (E.T.)
[the minors had spent almost half their lives with the mother].) This is unlike many cases
in which the minor has spent little to no time in the parent’s custody.
Third, mother progressed from once weekly supervised visits, to unsupervised
visits twice weekly; to eight hours of unsupervised visits weekly; to unsupervised,
overnight, weekend visits; to a 29-day extended visit; to a return to her custody for nearly
two months with family maintenance services. Thus, mother had made substantial
progress. (E.T., supra, 31 Cal.App.5th at p. 77 [the minors had been returned to the
mother with family maintenance services].) This is unlike many cases in which the
parent has never even progressed to unsupervised visitation, let alone extended visits and
a return to custody under family maintenance services.
Fourth, mother completed her reunification services. Mother had completed the
anger management, domestic violence classes, and parenting components of her case
plan. Mother completed two psychiatric evaluations. (E.T., supra, 31 Cal.App.5th at
21 p. 77 [the mother’s participation in reunification services].) In addition, mother herself
requested and completed individual therapy.
Fifth, mother benefitted from the services. The court observed, “I must commend
you on the work that you’ve been doing. It’s a very positive report about completing
services . . . .” The court noted, “it seems to me you’re benefitting greatly from your
services.” The social worker noted, “The mother has been observed to demonstrate what
she has learned in services and is utilizing the resources offered to her.” (Caden C.,
supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 637-638 [“[A] parent who gains greater understanding of herself
and her children’s needs through treatment may be in a better position to ensure that her
interactions with the children have a ‘“positive” . . . effect’ on them. [Citation.]”], citing
E.T., supra, 31 Cal.App.5th at p. 77.)
Sixth, the descriptions of mother’s interactions with minor during visitation were
consistently positive, even bordering on exemplary. Mother constantly brought toys and
educational materials for minor, which she used to engage with him. For example,
“[Mother] brought hair supplies, coloring books, markers, blocks, toy cars and animal
flash cards for the visit.” “The engagement between [mother] and [minor] was positive.
She did floor play with him with the blocks, braided his hair and went over the animal
flash cards with him. She praised him for being able to identify the animals on each card
as well as the sound that they made.”
Seventh, minor and mother were consistently described as emotionally bonded.
Minor “ran up to [mother] with a smile on his face, lifting his arms for her to pick him
22 up. She picked him up and embraced him with a smile on her face.” “[Minor] appeared
to be attached to [mother] as she was able to rock him to sleep.” The social worker
“observed that [minor] was extremely bonded to his mother as e[]videnced by him
smiling and running up to her when he saw her. [Mother] was receptive as e[]videnced
by her picking him up and [hugging] him.” “The mother was affectionate throughout the
visit with the children giving hugs, kisses . . . .” “The mother was very soft spoken and
affectionate in her communication with both children throughout the visit.” “The
children are bonded to their mother . . . .” Minor would cry when it was time to end
visits.
Eighth and finally, mother’s own, uncontradicted descriptions and testimony
regarding her relationship with minor established the depth of their bond. Mother
reported that minors’ “well-being is most important to her and that she wants her children
to know that she loves them and is committing to being a better mother for them.” “The
mother reports that her biggest priority is her children and stabilizing herself so that she
can provide the boys with a new life.” “The mother reports that she is determined to
make her own way for herself and her children.”
Mother testified that minors were happy to see her at visits. “They usually run up
to me, hug me, kiss me, and they usually make me carry them.” She holds and cuddles
minors. At the end of visits, minor would cling to her, cry, and tell her he did not want
the visits to end. Mother believed that if her parental rights were terminated, “it will
create an emotional distress for the boys. They want to come home and see me all the
23 time . . . .” “I think because they have an emotional connection with me and not seeing
me will hurt them more than it already does.” (E.T., supra, 31 Cal.App.5th at p. 77 [The
mother testified that severance of their relationship would be horrible for the children and
would not benefit them].)
Mother testified that even after the juvenile court terminated her reunification
services, she and minor talked on FaceTime every night, and “he tells me—all the time
that he wants to come home. He misses me. He loves me and he just wants his
mommy.”
We note that neither minor’s counsel nor counsel for the department cross-
examined mother or put on other witnesses to dispute mother’s testimony; thus, her
testimony was uncontradicted. In fact, the juvenile court expressly credited mother’s
testimony. Moreover, although evidence of “emotional dysregulation,” “night terrors,”
and “regressing . . . behavior,” as cited by the court, would certainly support mother’s
assertion of detriment, contrary to the court’s apparent concern, no such evidence is
required.
Thus, despite mother’s failures, the record demonstrates a deep-seated bond
between she and minor, the severance of which would be detrimental to minor. (In re
E.T., supra, 31 Cal.App.5th at p. 70 [“This is the rare case where the juvenile court erred
in failing to recognize that Mother’s relationship with her children outweighed the benefit
to the children that would accrue from termination of parental rights and a plan of
adoption”].)
24 III. DISPOSITION
The order terminating mother’s parental rights and freeing minor for adoption is
reversed, and the matter is remanded to the juvenile court for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
FIELDS J.